OathReady: Canadian Citizenship Test

Check or look up an answer

check_answer

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a bank question and optionally grade an answer to it. Accepts a question id (exact) OR remembered question text (fuzzy matched against all questions and their alternate phrasings). Typical uses: grading long after a question was fetched, or a user half-remembering a question from their real test and wanting the verified answer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`answer`	No	The user's answer to grade, if they have one
`language`	No	Language the answer (and question_text, if given) is written in; grading compares against that language's text
`question_id`	No	The question id, e.g. q-042 (exact match)
`question_text`	No	The question as the user remembers it (fuzzy matched); used when no id is given

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`question`	Yes
`web_page`	Yes
`explanation`	Yes
`question_id`	Yes
`correct_answer`	Yes
`match_confidence`	Yes
`your_answer_correct`	Yes	null when no answer was provided to grade
`other_possible_matches`	Yes	Runner-up matches when the text match was not certain

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. Description adds the dual-identification mode and optional grading, but does not elaborate on behavior when both identifiers are given or fuzzy matching details. Adds some value beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: first captures purpose and parameters, second adds usage context. No filler, front-loaded, every sentence serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers core functionality and typical uses. Lacks mention of error handling when no identifier is provided or no match found, but overall adequate for a simple tool with good annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions fully cover all 4 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the 'exact ID vs fuzzy text' distinction and mentioning alternate phrasings for fuzzy matching, which is not in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool looks up a bank question and optionally grades an answer, with two specific identification methods (exact ID or fuzzy text). Title 'Check or look up an answer' reinforces this. No sibling tool overlaps with this functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Two concrete use cases are given: grading long after fetching a question, or looking up a half-remembered question. This provides clear context, though no explicit exclusion or alternative tool references are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All OathReady: Canadian Citizenship Test tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: presence calculation, question lookup/grading, stats, daily challenge, journey stats, mock test, oath guide, practice question, study guide, test day guide, and test info. Even the three question-providing tools (get_daily_challenge, get_mock_test, get_practice_question) are well-differentiated by format and intent.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, with most starting with 'get_' (e.g., get_daily_challenge, get_mock_test) and two exceptions (calculate_presence, check_answer) that still adhere to the same verb_noun structure. No mixed conventions.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is well-scoped for the Canadian citizenship test domain. It covers eligibility calculation, multiple question formats, statistics, guides, and test-day information without being overwhelming or sparse.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the entire lifecycle: eligibility check (calculate_presence), study resources (practice questions, mock tests, study guide, daily challenge), reference info (test info, oath guide, test day guide), statistics, and a question-answer lookup tool. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?